David Limbaugh on Bush Mandate

We're still being deluged with a political commentary that suggests Bush should abondon the agenda he ran on during the election and adopt portions of the Democrat agenda. Under the heading of Dems Still Don't Get It, I give you excerpts from Rush's brother David Limbaugh's recent column. I recommend reading it in full.

WorldNetDaily: Who's calling whom arrogant?: "I'm struck by the irony of the liberal punditry warning Republicans not to interpret their sweeping victories as a mandate because such 'arrogance' could lead to a voter backlash.

....

Similarly, Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein writes: "The larger issue in this dispute [over the intelligence restructuring bill] is whether Bush wants to reach out to all Americans, or just court those at the core of his political coalition."

The objective fact is that President Bush and Republicans won decisively. The lesson most reasonable people would take from such a victory is not that they were doing something wrong and they better back off from it. While I agree that winners shouldn't become high-handed, neither should they act like losers.

Why should President Bush voluntarily surrender his just-affirmed political capital by capitulating to the demands of Democrats? Wouldn't that be as much of a slap in the face to voters, who just endorsed his agenda, as becoming cocky?

According to this liberal logic, Republicans should act like losers when they lose and act like losers when they win. President Bush, having run on an agenda of staying the course in Iraq, making his tax cuts permanent, and injecting a measure of private ownership in the Social Security system, should abandon all three goals.